What does 'coming soon' mean? ...here's an example. If you go to apply for a TSB classic plus current account online, you would click on 'apply online today'. The next page to load on your browser will say 'coming soon'.

BAT customer services got back to me soon after posting this saying they received the B&H cigarette packets, and that they've been sent off to the quality dept. for analysis. THey also gave me 2-3 week time frame for results. Last week I heard back from them with the results.

When I applied for a Barclays SAR back in June I wrote to: The Data Protection Team Block 12 Barclays Bank PLC Radbroke Hall Knutsford Cheshire WA16 9E They replied saying 'you've recently requested copies of telephone conversations. In order for us to retrieve these please provide the following information: the number you called, the number you called from, date and time of call). That letter came from: The Manager, Barclays General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Team Barclays Bank Plc, Privacy and Data Protection Leicester LE87 2BB I wrote back saying there hasn't been any calls. (I should have said 'if there was I would have recorded them anyway ') They sent me paper docs on the 40th day. (this was pre-gdpr, so 40 days for SAR, now it's 30 days and you can request docs in electronic format, and they have to comply) I think the most up-to-date address/email to use for SARS now is: The Data Protection Officer, Barclays Bank UK PLC, Leicester, LE87 2BB email: DPO@Barclays.com. the last address/email above is what's on their website: https://www.barclays.co.uk/important-information/privacy-policy/

I contacted Jes on 08 August 2018 by email. Received reply from executive team saying they will conduct a 'review of the circumstances' I outlined and arrange for me to be contacted with an update as quickly as possible but no later than 13 August. I received an email from a different staff member of exec team on 13 August asking for a 'convenient time to call'. Little bit skeptical about how this has suddenly turned in to 'doing things over the phone' exercise. What's next?, asking to meet face to face at a random location?

I contacted these jokers a while ago. Everything was hunky dory then took a sudden twist. Here's my story. Contacted British American Tobacco (BAT) customer services to ask if there was someway to find out the manufacture date of a carton of Duty Free Benson and Hedges cigarettes. Answer was 'Yes', there's a code on the carton, which also appears on each packet of cigarettes inside the carton. Send an empty pack to us, we will send it off to Southampton for tracing. I heed this advice, enclose 3 empty packs along-with a covering letter, and post it via recorded delivery to the Customer Services Dept. based in Richmond-Upon-Thames. I had confirmed where to send the packets via email before sending it. Customer services assistant also told me it would take 2 weeks for Southampton branch to get back to me. Two weeks pass, three weeks pass, a month passes. No news. So I email them. Not a whisper. Contact them via the web form. Still nothing. Telephone the same customer services assistant who's been dealing with it and ask if he received my email. ‘Yes' is the response, but no explanation about the lack of reply. I tell him that as my letter was sent via recorded delivery, I have a receipt issued by Royal Mail with the name and signature of the person signing for it. He asks me to send that receipt via email and that he will look in to it. Now a week's gone by and still no reply. I've emailed him. No reply. Such a shame that after 25 years of buying the same BAT brand, the only occasion I reach out for support they build-up my hopes then abandon me. Should I email the CEO Nicandro Durante?

Looks like the ICO has delegated complaint handling to the organisations (banks) themselves!. A bit like the farmer, who is inundated with many duties (and a lack of funding) who delegates the role of looking after the chicken coup to the fox. BTW, When I follow the ICO link, the interactive wizard asks me 'What is your concern about personal information? *' No matter what I select here, it then asks me 'Have you contacted the organisations? *' If I choose 'No', it says 'Contact the organisation', and there's a link to a template letter. Seems we can only report to ICO if Barclays' response to this letter is unsatisfactory (or we don't receive a response). For reporting to ICO we use a form: https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/your-personal-information-concerns/personal-information-concerns/personal-information-concerns-report/ Couldn't help noticing that 'has sent you someone else’s personal information.' has disappeared from the new (spruced up) form. (It used to be one of the 'concern types' in the old form) Guess we need to select 'something else' and then specify. What a palava!

Well spotted. I've now redacted the house number. B's replied to SAR, I believe, slap bang on the 40th day. Basically, they received my SAR on 16 May 2018, I received SAR documents (including other person's docs) on 26 June 2018. I think the clock starts ticking from 17 May (next day after receipt). Not sure if the day I receive documents is counted. If it is, then it would make it 41 days. Barclays-Mr-X-Child-Saver.pdf Barclays-Mr-X-Restraining-Order-Freeze-Accounts.pdf Barclays-Mr-X-Accounts-Closed.pdf Barclays-Mr-X-Unfreeze-Accounts.pdf

I applied for a Subject Access Request to Barclays. Roll on 40 calendar days* Barclays send me two packages via courier. One of them had bank statements and letters belonging to a Nigerian businessman. Some letters were about freezing his accounts due to a court injunction/restraining order, unfreezing it after the court discharged the restraining order, and eventually the accounts being closed by Barclays a few days later. (See redacted documents attached) The statements cover a two year period at least. There was also a letter about a children's Instant Saver Account. (see attached) Account numbers, sort code, address, all transactions on his account...the lot. Pretty shocking how reckless Barclays have been with his data. The worst part is, Barclays say in their GDRP letter sent to us: 'Barclays is committed to protecting your personal data..". Does anyone know if I should complain to the ICO or is it Barclays? It used to be ICO. This may have changed after GDPR came in to play. * - I applied before GDPR came in to force, so deadline was 40 days not 30 as it is now. Barclays-Mr-X-Accounts-Closed.pdf Barclays-Mr-X-Unfreeze-Accounts.pdf Barclays-Mr-X-Restraining-Order-Freeze-Accounts.pdf Barclays-Mr-X-Child-Saver.pdf

never forgotten is great. THen there is digging up something from 20-30 years ago in an act of desperation, to make oneself look/sound superior (to regain lost credibility by slating the opposition)

Claimed by "some"..not "most".

Paid for an English teacher training course using Paypal. The payment was held for Payment review by Payal for just over 24 hours. Experienced a lot of friction, stress and bother due to this. When I raised it as a complaint, Paypal didn't reply. Raised it as a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). The adjudicator told me FOS can only look at what's in the Paypal agreement. I disagreed, and told him that UK law, EU directives and regulator's rules apply. The case was then looked at by an Ombudsman. Please see decision attached below: There is no way I can accept this ombudsman decision (I still believe in the law of the land). For complaints about paypal, note that only 1 in 20 complaints are decided in favour of the consumer. 'Sour grapes'?, I doubt it. Just started a blog giving all the details about this complaint, so others are aware: https://financialombudsmanbiased.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/complaint-about-paypal/ Paypal-Final-Decision-upload.pdf

Please see attached FOS Manager's email saying she has not seen any corrospondence from BOC (UK) where they've said it's a separate entity. (Attachment: fos-to-me.pdf) It's worth noting though, after the Ombudsman got involved, BOC (UK) compliance team told the Ombudsman (see attachment boc-uk-compliance-to-fos.pdf ): Funny that!, for one, they don't mention the 30 April 2014 email from Mr M, like FOS has done, but seem to rely on "telephone calls". The other, I've only spoken with them on the phone a couple of times in 2013/14. That was about the account opening. Jurisdiction never came up. If it did, would BOC (UK) have really gone on to assist me with BOC (Sri Lanka) issues as late as November 2015. (see attached email boc-lk-to-me.pdf) By the way, BOC (Sri Lanka) had told me they "routed payments" through the UK branch (See boc-lk-to-me.pdf, page 1) boc-lk-to-me.pdf fos-to-me.pdf boc-uk-compliance-to-fos.pdf

Still shocked by this decision. When BOC (UK) issued their final response letter in May 2016 (after FOS became involved). They said: This was completely false. They had at no point told me the UK branch was a subsidiary or that it was a seperate entity. The final response letter was the first time they mentioned it. Between the adjudicator issuing his conclusions and the complaint being passed to an Ombudsman, I was communicating with the Manager, Ms F (Because the adjudicator had been pulled off the case). I sent Ms F copies of nine emails; emails between me and BOC (UK), and vice versa, and also BOC (Sri Lanka) to me, where BOC (UK) has been copied. One of the emails from the Chief Operating Officer in BOC (UK) to me copied in BOC (Sri Lanka). It was sent on 30 April 2014 (see attached) and said: During the ombudsman complaint, I asked Ms F for case file evidence that confirms if I was made aware about BOC (UK) being a subsidiary. She didn't respond to this. I asked her again, then she responded saying: She was taking what the BOC (UK) Chief Operating Officer had said completely out of context. (see attachment) The officer who came to the UK branch on a secondment was finishing his tenure, and returning to Sri Lanka. He was basically saying copy in London customer services, and not him as usual. I replied to Ms F saying this: My email was sent 2 days before the ombudsman issued her decision. The ombudsman in her decision says: But then her explanation to this is: Completely ignoring the remainder of that email. This is a typical example where the FOS picks out evidence that suits their pre-determined notions (and ultimate decision/outcome). The email actually says contact the SL branch for anything relating to THAT account and copy the UK branch. It doesn't tell me it's a subsidiary branch (or a separate legal entity). BOC (UK) went on to handle problems about BOC(SL) after April 2014. If they had told me they were a subsidiary and thus a separate legal entity, surely they wouldn't have handled the later support queries. BTW, when I contacted the BOC (UK) branch about the international transfers, I was of the belief that the transfers originated in UK, because that's what the Halifax bank (recipient bank) had told me. yep, the English language has many uses, but to use it in the manner FOS does. Shakespeare will be turning in his grave. 01-30-April-2014-BOC-UK-to-N-BOC-SL-copied.pdf

Back in September 2016, I made a SAR to the FOS, so I was able to get documents and call recordings relating to this complaint (after a lot of friction mind you). In one of the calls, a BOC (UK) employee tells the FOS, bank accounts need to be dormant for six years before closure, and that it applies to all customers (hear audio recording attached. check around 50 seconds in to the audio) I think she is wrong. A dormant account is a dormant account. Different rules apply. When a bank closes an account it needs to justify the reasons. BOC (UK) told me it was because the account was inactive and due to the strength of the banking relationship. However, the strength of the relationship was strong. I had been contacting BOC (UK) regularly, However, the ombudsman decided to leave that part out and focus on just the inactive element. Anyway, in one of my emails to the FOS I said: In the final decision, the ombudsman says: This is not how I understood it, I was telling the FOS what the BOC (UK) staff member told FOS. I was merely saying that she said one thing but did something else, because clearly it hasn't been 6 years since October 2013. this part is indisputable. The ombudsman here has clearly got the wrong end of the stick. Although, for someone who's been issuing decisions for some time now, it seems unlikely this was (amongst others) a genuine error. The errors seem very premeditated and calculated to redeem the bank of it's actions. Not to mention redeem the adjudicator on how he conducted the investigation. The banking conduct of business sourcebook (BCOBS) is clear on when an account can be closed, I emailed FOS the link, and pointed to the relevant part. The ombudsman decision just says: Then goes on to say: Again, I didn't refer to the dormancy rules, the BOC(UK) staff member did. boc-uk-to-fos-call-2016-07-04-@10.17.mp3

Kindly learn to have some patience. When I post the full commentary, you can draw your own conclusions, rather than me having to spell it out for you. We (consumers) often have to wait months on end for the Ombudsman to decide complaints. So, the least you can do is wait a couple of days (at most). If YOU lot take too long, it's always lack of resources. If we don't post everything all at once (because it's too long), then you've already made up your mind. A proper analogy here would be: Shoot first, think afterwards.